i have a reluctant relationship with the internet, computers, phones, etc., but Nick sent me this article about cognitive surplus that made me feel like at least writing on blogs is better than watching tv.
http://www.herecomeseverybody.org/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html
in that spirit, have a look at craig's new sociology blog. http://blog.cwillse.net. he gets excited when there are lots of visitors.
and the real reason i'm posting: i keep meeting students (grad and undergrad) at different universities and colleges who are working on making their student health services provide trans health care. i am excited about the idea of people coordinating efforts, sharing strategies, and linking their struggles with those of university employees trying to gain coverage. i think that winning coverage from big institutional employers is important because it strengthens our arguments for Medicaid coverage and for coverage under any emerging universal health program we get. (for more on this see nick gorton's new article in sexuality research and social policy). so, i'm encouraging these students to start a list serve about the topic. if you know that such a thing already exists, or if you know of people who should be a part of it, please let me know and i'll pass it along to them.
finally, i'm going to seattle to look for housing this week. if you want to rent me and bridge a two or three bedroom house or part of a house somewhere near seattle university with a yard, let me know.

I just updated the syllabus for my Law and Social Movements class to reflect changes that I made over the course of the semester. The final version is below in the Feb 1 entry for anyone interested.

Here it is so far, although it will no doubt change and be further developed over the course of the semester. I'll post the finalized version at the end of the semester in case it interests anyone.

Law and Social Movements
Harvard Law School
Spring 2008

Course Description
This course will critically examine the relationship between law and social movements, specifically engaging texts and materials that suggest a relationship that includes criminalization and cooptation. Often in the legal profession and in legal academia, as well as in popular culture, we hear of the relationship between law and social movements primarily in terms of the use of legal strategies such as litigation and policy reform to secure rights and freedoms for oppressed and excluded groups. Many people come to law school specifically with the aim of utilizing legal skills to support and bolster the equality claims of marginalized communities. The materials used in this course will problematize the assumption that the primary role of law with regard to social movements is to support emancipatory progress. We will instead take the opportunity to look broadly at the meanings of key concepts such as discrimination, freedom, liberation, power, governance and violence as they relate to the stories that lawyers, movement activists, governments, and the media tell about the role of law in movements for social change. Our examination will engage “law” beyond strictly jurisprudence and look at the construction of legality and illegality with regard to dissent. Our inquiry will aim to cultivate deeper understandings of the current parameters and possibilities within social movements given the incentives and disincentives provided by various technologies of legal intervention over the past half century.

Course Materials
All materials will be provided as pdf files on the course website except materials from two books, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non Profit Industrial Complex, Ed. Incite!, and How NonViolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos, which can be purchased at the Coop.

Schedule (subject to change)
Intro: Framing Social Movement Claims

Week 1
(January 30, 31)

Wendy Brown, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity, 96-134
Chela Sandoval, Methodologies of the Oppressed, pp. 41-67
Lisa Duggan, Twilight of Equality Introduction and Chapter 3
Miami Workers Center, “Four Pillars of Social Justice Infrastructure” (Handout in Class)

Part I. Criminalization of Social Movements

Films on reserve (or soon to be):
Documentaries:
The Weather Underground
Legacy of Torture
Forest for the Trees
Guerrilla, the taking of Patty Hearst
Camden 28
Narrative:
Born in Flames
Battle of Algiers
Malcolm X
Running on Empty

Week 2
(February 6, 7)
Assata, Ch 1, 5
William, Evelyn, Inadmissible Evidence: The Story of the African-American Trial
Lawyer who Defended the Black Liberation Army. USA: iUniverse.com Inc. 2000. Chapter 8, pg. 77-89, Chapter 11, pg. 107-120, Chapter 13, pg. 131-135, Chapter 14, pg. 136-147.
Balagoon, Kuwasi. A Soldier’s Story: Writings by a Revolutionary New Afrikan
Anarchist. Kersplebedeb Publishing 2003. Opening Statement, pg. 27-56, Closing Statement, pg. 57-67.
Gilbert, David. No Surrender: Writings from an Anti-Imperialist Political Prisoner. Toronto, Ontario: Arm the Spirit, 2004, First Court Statement, pg. 26 -27, Opening Trial Statement, pg. 27-30.
Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, COINTELPRO Papers (sections on Black Liberation Movement, New Left and Conclusion)
Arthur Kinoy, Rights On Trial, 1-38

Week 3
(February 13, 14)
Cathy Wilkerson, “Flying Close to the Sun.” 1-4, 379-393
Jacobs, Harold ed., Weatherman. Ramparts Press, Inc. 1970. Thomas, Tom. “The Second Battle of Chicago,” pg.196-226, Ono, Shinya. “A Weatherman: You Do Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way the Wind Blows,” pg. 227-274.
Matsimela, Muntu et al. eds., Black Prison Movements USA New Jersey: Africa
World Press, Inc. 1995. Bandele, Safiya and ibn Kenyatta. “On Refusing Parole,” pg. 86-105, Elijah, Jill Soffiyah. “Special International Tribunal in Human Rights Violations of Political/POW Prisoners in the United States,” pg. 137-148.
Committee to End the Marion Lockdown. Can’t Jail the Spirit: Political Prisoners in
the U.S. 2002.
Lopez-Rivera, Oscar. “Puerto Rican Prisoner of War,” pg. 171-174.
SF8 Case materials (please review the website, http://www.freethesf8.org)

Week 4
(February 20, 21)
Guest Speaker Feb. 20, Susan Tipograph.
Churchill, Ward and J.J. Vander Wall, eds., Cages of Steel: The Politics of Imprisonment in the United States. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve Press, c1992. Korn, Richard. Excerpts from – “Report on the Effects of Confinement in the Lexington High Security Unit,” pg. 123-127, Rosenberg, Susan. “Reflections on Being Buried Alive,” pg. 128-130, Shakur, Mutulu et al. “Prisoners of War: The Legal Standing of Members of the National Liberation Movements,” pg. 152-173,Whitehorn, Laura. “Preventive Detention: A Prevention of Human Rights?” pg. 365-277, “Excerpts from - The Verdict of the International Tribunal on Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War in the United States,” pg. 403-413.
Georgakas, Dan and Marvin Surkin. Detroit: I do Mind Dying: A Study in Urban
Revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: South End Press, 1998. “James Johnson: A Prologue,” pg. 9-11, Chapter 8: “Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets: STRESS,” pg. 151-173, Chapter 9: “Mr. Justin Ravitz, Marxist Judge of Recorder’s Court,” pg. 175-187.

Part II. Violence, Discrimination, Cooptation and Law

Week 5
(February27, 28)
Coronado, Rod. Flaming Arrows: A Compilation of Works by Rod Coronado. North Carolina: IEF Press, 2006. Rosenfeld, Ben. “The ‘Case’ Against Rod Coronado: A legal Memo on the Green Scale.” Coronado, Rod. “The High Price of Pacifism”
Peter Gelderloos, How Nonviolence Protects the State Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7.
Color of Violence excerpts including:
Lisa Sudbury, Chapter 1: Rethinking Antiviolence Strategies: Lessons from the Black Women’s Movement in Britain
Dorothy Robert, Chapter 4: Feminism, Race, and Adoption Policy
Andrea J. Ritchie, Chapter 17: Law Enforcement Violence Against Women of Color
Patricia Allard, Chapter 18: Crime, Punishment, and Economic Violence


Week 6
(Marcy 5, 6)
Alan Freeman, “Legitimizing Racial Discrimination Through Anti-Discrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine” in Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, (ed. Crenshaw et. al)
Lisa A. Crooms, “Everywhere There's War”: A Racial Realist's Reconsideration of Hate Crimes Statutes, Inaugural Issue Geo. J. Gender & Law 41, 44 (1999)
More Color of Violence Excerpts including:
Chapter 2: Disability in the New World Order, by Nirmala Erevelles
Chapter 10: The War to Be Human/ Becoming Human in a Time of War, by Neferti Tadiar
Chapter 11: The Forgotten “-ism”: An Arab American Women’s Perspective on Zionism, Racism, and Sexism, by Nadine Naber, Eman Desouky, and Lina Baroudi
Chapter 14: “National Security” and the Violation of Women: Militarized Border Rape at the US- Mexico Border, by Sylvanna Falcon
Chapter 15: The Complexities of “Feminicide” on the Border, by Rosa Linda Fregoso
Chapter 16: INS Raids and How Immigrant Women are Fighting Back, by Renee Saucedo
Chapter 23: Sistas Makin’ Moves: Collective Leadership for Personal Transformation
and Social Justice
Chapter 24: Disloyal to Feminism: Abuse of Survivors within the Domestic Violence Shelter System, by Emi Koyama
Chapter 25: Gender Violence and the Prison-Industrial Complex: Statement by Critical Resistance and Incite! Women of Color Against Violence
Chapter 26: Trans Day of Action for Social and Economic Justice: Statement by TransJustice, a project of Audre Lorde Project, a community organizing center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirit, and Transgender People of Color in the New York city Area
Chapter 29: Taking Risks: Implementing Grassroots Community Accountability Strategies: Written by a collective of women of color from Communities Against Rape and Abuse (CARA): Alisa Bierra, Onion Carrillo, Eboni Colbert, Xandra Ibarra, Theryn Kigvamasud’Vashti, and Shale Maulana
Angela Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete?, pp 9-83

Week 7
(March 13, 14)
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded Excerpts including:
Chapter 1: The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, by Dylan Rodríguez
Chapter 2: In The Shadow of the Shadow State, by Ruth Wilson Gilmore
Chapter 4: Democratizing American Philanthropy, by Christine E. Ahn
Chapter 10: Social Service or Social Change?, by Paul Kivel
Chapter 15: Non-Profits and the Autonomous Grassroots, by Eric Tang


Part III. Biopolitics and Governmentality

Week 8
(Marcy 19, 20)
Catch Up

Week 9 (April 2, 3)
Michel Foucault, “Governmentality”
Michel Foucault, “Society Must Be Defended”
Mitchell Dean, Governmentality, Chapters 1, 5

Part IV. Trans and Queer Politics and Legal Strategy in the Context of Criminalization and Cooptation

Films on Reserve (or soon to be):
Homotopia
Market This
NGLTF’s Marriage Documentary
Screaming Queens

Week 10
(April 10, 11)
Angela Harris, “From Stonewall to the suburbs?: Toward a political economy of sexuality,” 14 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 1539 (2006).
Anna Agathangelou, Morgan Bassichis, Tamara Spira, “Intimate Investments: Homonormativity, Global Lockdown, and the Seductions of Empire,” Radical History Review 2007.
Please review the materials found here: HYPERLINK "http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes/5895.htm" http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes/5895.htm INCLUDEPICTURE "http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.13/t.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET
Alex Lee, “Gendered Crime & Punishment: Strategies to Protect Transgender, Gender Variant & Intersex People in America’s Prisons”

Optional:
Sarah Lamble, Retelling Racialized Violence, Remaking White Innocence: The Politics of Interlocking Oppressions in Transgender Day of Remembrance (forthcoming in Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC)
Christina Hanhardt, “Butterflies, Whistles and Fists: Gay Safe Street Patrols and the New Gay Ghetto 1976-1981,” Radical History Review 2007.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)
Lucrecia v. Samples, 1995 WL 630016 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 1995)
Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 1999)

Week 11
(April 16, 17)
Jasbir Puar, Terrorist Assemblages, Chapter 3, Intimate Control, Infinite Detention: Rereading the Lawrence case (pp. 114-165)
Kenyon Farrow, “Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?”
Marlon Bailey, Priya Kandaswamy, Mattie Udora Richardson, “Is Gay Marriage Racist?” In That’s Revolting: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, Ed. Sycamore (2005).
Lisa Duggan, Twilight of Equality (review Ch. 3, “Equality, Inc.”)
“The Impact of the War on Terror on LGBTST Communities” at http://srlp.org/index.php?sec=03M&page=wotnotes

Part V. Surveillance, Social Movements, and the War on Terror

Week 12
(April 23, 24)
Look around at HYPERLINK "http://www.realnightmare.org" www.realnightmare.org
FBI Biometrics Database article (Dec. 22, 2007) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544.html?nav=rss_print/asection)
Materials on Drivers License battles
Dean Spade, “Documenting Gender,” forthcoming in the Hastings Law Journal.

The final Real ID regs are out. Its so depressing and enraging. Here is a press release about some events going on in NYC upcoming and also provides some analysis. I also recommend realnighmare.org.

New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004
www.nyclu.org

CONTACT:

Jennifer Carnig, 212.607.3363 / jcarnig@nyclu.org

NYCLU Analysis: Real ID Regulations Jeopardize Rights, Liberties and State Budget

Long Island and Manhattan Forums to Show What Real ID Means for New York

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 15, 2008 -- Final federal regulations for implementing the Real ID Act only intensify concerns that the law would gravely threaten privacy rights by establishing a national identification system, according to an analysis by the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The NYCLU calls on New York to join the 17 other states nationwide that have rejected the Real ID Act. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released the final regulations Friday following more than a year of delays.

"The regulations are nothing more than window-dressing for a fundamentally flawed law," said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. "They do not address the grave harm Real ID would do to New Yorkers' privacy and liberty. They do not change the fact that we don't know the price tag for this dubious venture - except that it will be exorbitant and that it will divert resources from far more deserving social service and public safety initiatives."

On Oct. 27, 2007, Gov. Spitzer announced that New York would implement the Real ID Act just before he abandoned his plan to offer secure driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The NYCLU calls on him to abandon the Real ID Act.

The NYCLU is hosting a series of public forums to inform people of the threats that the Real ID Act poses to democratic values. A Long Island forum will take place at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, Jan. 15 at Huntington Town Hall, 100 Main St. in Huntington. Another community forum is scheduled in New York City for 7 p.m. on Thursday, Jan 24. at the New York Society for Ethical Culture at 2 W. 64th St. Forums have previously been held in Rochester and Rheinbeck.

The Real ID Act goes well beyond setting federal standards for state driver's license or identification cards. The gravest risk, according to the NYCLU, is what the regulations do not say. They include no limits or constraints upon the authority of the government to dictate when a Real ID may be required. In fact, the regulations strongly suggest that in the future a Real ID driver's license could be required for routine transactions and activities, such as voting or applying for federal benefits. The Department of Homeland Security claims authority to expand the list at any time without congressional approval.

What's more, the federal regulations do not prohibit private sector businesses and organizations from requiring Real ID driver's licenses for commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. In short, people could not manage their lives without a Real ID card; it would become a necessity - a de facto national ID card.

The NYCLU's critique of the Real ID law includes the following observations:

* If implemented, the Real ID Act could establish an enormous electronic infrastructure that government and law enforcement officials - or whoever else hacks in - could use to track Americans' activities and movements.

* The final regulations do not set rules for the security of Americans' personal information. The Real ID statute requires that each state provide an unspecified array of government officials in all other states and territories access to personal information stored in DMV databases - such as Social Security numbers, photos and copies of birth certificates. The Department of Homeland Security essentially leaves it up to the states to determine how to protect privacy and security. This means sensitive, personal information would only be as safe as the DMV or state office with the weakest security system.

* The law also mandates that all driver's licenses and ID cards have a "machine-readable zone" that would facilitate tracking by the government and private sector. Real IDs would leave a digital fingerprint whenever swiped, scanned or read, which would allow the federal government, or anyone with a reader, to collect an enormous amount of information about people's activities and interests. Encrypting the information on Real ID-compliant driver's licenses would reduce some of the privacy threats, but the Department of Homeland Security has refused to require encryption, fearing that it would prevent easy access to the information contained in the barcodes.

* The final regulations place no limits on what types of information could be stored in the Real ID's machine-readable zone. Nor do the regulations prohibit third-party access to such information - meaning any business equipped with a reader could capture personal information and use it to develop customer "lifestyle profiles" or simply sell the information to other businesses or to the federal government.

"Essentially, the Real ID Act puts our personal information up for sale," Lieberman said. "It is the equivalent of an EZ-Pass for identity thieves. Under this law, the federal government conceivably could learn what books people read, what sorts of contraception they use or what medications they are prescribed."

* The Real ID Act imposes an enormous unfunded mandate upon the states. Despite a nearly $10 billion cost estimate, the federal government has set aside only $40 million to help states pay for implementing the law. The Department of Homeland Security has made it clear that it expects individuals and state governments to pay for the costs of Real ID. At a time when New York is facing a $4 billion budget deficit, the Spitzer administration has estimated that implementation of the Real ID Act would cost New York tens of millions of dollars annually and require 10 new DMV offices.

The Real ID Act was originally supposed to take effect on May 11, 2008, but these regulations clearly leave the issue with the next administration. The final regulations grant states an extension, until Dec. 31, 2009, to agree to comply with the law. An additional extension, until May 10, 2011, would be provided to states that submit a material compliance checklist. (According to the final regulations, individuals younger than 50 have until Dec. 1, 2014 to obtain a Real ID-compliant driver's license. Individuals 50 and older have until Dec. 1, 2017.)

i just got an email from the northstar fund about this workshop. i don't know anything about it but thought it might interest people just to see the description.

An Opportunity for Intensive Dialogue About a Taboo Topic
A Class Action workshop

Saturday, March 1st 10 AM – 6 PM & Sunday, March 2nd 10 AM – 1 PM

What class did you grow up in? What strengths and limitations came from your class background? How has your class background affected your relationships with people of the same and different classes?
What are key elements in your class culture? How do different class cultures look? What would you like to ask people who grew up in completely different class backgrounds?
How does race intersect with class? How do you see things that are about classism being named racism?
What are the larger economic and political factors affecting class now?
How do class dynamics show up in your life? Your work? Your home? Your community?
What are steps you can take to overcome class barriers in your life personally and institutionally?
How do you decide how much to pay, how do you value different choices you make?
Join a diverse group to explore these questions and more.

Cost: To determine the amount you will pay for attending the workshop we use a radical process called Cost Sharing, which is designed to make you and us comfortable with your contribution. Past participants have paid between $0 - $1,500. Its your choice. All participants of our workshops benefit greatly when all class backgrounds are represented, so please, dont count yourself out. Many past participants have said that the Cost Sharing process was the best part of the workshop for them.

Feel free to contact us with any transportation or childcare needs, concerns, or fears you might have.

Registration is required. For more info please contact Class Action:

(413)585-9709 or email, info@classism.org or register on line at www.classism.org. Please register early, space is limited!

Workshop Facilitators: Rhonda Soto and Felice Yeskel
Rhonda Soto, Class Actions Race/Class Intersections Program Coordinator, was born and raised in Harlem, New York. As a single parent on welfare, she moved to a culturally all white suburban area. She continued her education and worked her way towards earning a bachelors degree from Mount Holyoke College. Upon completing her bachelors, Rhonda worked with teens in a transitional shelter, then with GED students preparing for college. Most recently she taught middle school where she also chaired their diversity committee.

Felice Yeskel, Executive Director of Class Action and Co-Founder of United for a Fair Economy comes from a working class Jewish family from New York City's lower-east side. She is an educator and activist and the co-author of Economic Apartheid in America, second edition was published by The New Press in the fall of 2005.

This workshop is co-sponsored by North Star Fund and Resource Generation

i can't stop eating this cabbage salad: http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/240584 even though it is freezing cold here and totally wrong to be eating cold crispy things. there's been no heat in my house for two days! extreme new england welcome.
speaking of which, i just got to boston a few days ago and i have many visitors coming this weekend. if you know of delicious foods to eat here or good things to do that can be done in the snow and with a 2.75 year old, please tell me. especially delicious foods near cambridge. i'll probably just be eating cabbage salad but they might want something else.

hi friends,

i'm working on my syllabus for law and social movements. in general, i'm interested in teaching it from a perspective that helps the students critically engage the assumption that some people have that the way to think about "law and social movements" is that legal reform is primarily a beneficial element in social movements. instead, i want us to see how law often criminalizes and coopts social movements, and then think through strategic questions about how that works, how some lawyers and activists try to avoid that while still engaging in law reform, how the focus on legal reform has shaped demands of social movements, etc.

an initial part of the syllabus is about the criminalization of social movements, and i'm having a hard time picking readings. if you have favorite texts (or even films) about the criminalization of social movements, and specifically the role of lawyers (either defending or prosecuting) in those battles, let me know. autobiographies that include discussion of legal strategy or dilemmas faced by lawyers or criminalized activists, critical articles or books, interesting histories all welcome. so far some of my thoughts are:
the part in Assata where she refuses to participate in her trial
the COINTELPRO Papers
some of the autobiographical stuff from the Weather Underground (do you have a favorite book or passage?)
some of the stuff by or about Angela Davis' prosecution
discussion of the SF8 case
other good discussions of criminalization of contemporary social movements?

if you can think of specific things within what i have listed, or other things, that might be a good way to think about the criminalization of social movements, especially for future lawyers interested in social movements, that is great. some students, i imagine, will be familiar with some of this history and others totally new to it.

i'll post the syllabus when i get it in better shape. thanks for the help!

so, my long job search has ended. after a torturous decision i accepted a job at seattle u. which i am so excited about. feel free to let me know about important northwest things/people/events/mountains i should know. i'll be there probably in july sometime.

I thought other people might be interested in the syllabus I just finished teaching. I always like to see other people's. Also, I want to HIGHLY recommend a new book: Jasbir Puar's Terrorist Assemblages.


Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies 187

Race, Class, Ability and Transgender Rights
Fall 2007
Wednesday 12-2:50pm
Public Affairs 2325

Instructor:
Dean Spade

REQUIRED TEXTS
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, ed. Incite! Women of Color Against Violence (South End Press, 2007) (hereinafter “RWNBF”).
The Transgender Studies Reader, eds. Whittle and Stryker (Routledge, 2006) (hereinafter “TSR”).

All other readings will be provided as PDF files on the course webpage or as handouts in class.

Schedule

October 3
First Class, no reading but we will meet for the full class period.

October 10
Janice Raymond, “Sappho by Surgery: The Transsexually Constructed Lesbian Feminist,” TSR p. 131
Sandy Stone, “The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto,” TSR 221
Emi Koyama, “Whose Feminism Is It Anyway: The Unspoken Racism of the Trans Inclusion Debate,” TSR p. 699

October 17
Chela Sandoval, “Methodologies of the Oppressed” excerpt (PDF on Course Website)
Kimberly Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color, in Critical Race Theory: Key Writings That Formed the Movement (1995) (PDF on Course Website)
Roderick A. Ferguson, Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique, Pages 1-29 (PDF on Course Website)

October 24
Films: Cruel and Unusual, Toilet Training, Boy I Am, and No Dumb Questions

October 31
Class held in Royce 314
Guest Speakers, Filmmakers Chris Vargas and Eric Stanley
Readings: “Anti-Colonial Responses to Gender Violence” from Conquest by Andrea Smith

November 7
Eli Clare, Exile and Pride excerpt (PDF on Course Website)
Doe v. Bell (PDF on Course Website)
Dwight B. Billings and Thomas Urban, The Socio-Medical Construction of Transsexualism: An Interpretation and Critique, 29 SOCIAL PROBLEMS 266, 276 (1982) (PDF on Course Website)
Nick Gorton, Toward a Resolution of GID, the Model of Disease, and the Transgender Community, available at http://www.makezine.org/giddisease.htm
Optional Reading:
Adrienne L. Hiegel, “Sexual Exclusions: The Americans with Disabilities Act as a Moral Code,” 94 Colum. L. Rev. 1451 (1994) (PDF on Course Website)

November 14
Angela Harris, “From Stonewall to the Suburbs?” (PDF on Course Website)
Alex Lee, Nowhere to Go But Out: The Collision between Transgender and Gender-Variant Prisoners and the Gender Binary in America’s Prisons available at http://spr.org/pdf/NowhereToGoButOut.pdf
Testimony from the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Hearings 2005 (PDF on Course Website)
Sample prison policies regarding transgender inmates (Handout)

November 21
Sarah Lamble, Retelling Racialized Violence, Remaking White Innocence: The Politics of Interlocking Oppressions in Transgender Day of Remembrance (forthcoming in Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC) (PDF on Course Website)
Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists (excerpts) (PDF on Course Website)
Please review the materials found here: http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes/5895.htm
Bassichis, Aganthangelou and Spira, Intimate Investment: Homonormativity, Global Lockdown and the Seductions of Empire (forthcoming in Radical History Review) (PDF on Course Website)
Optional Reading:
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (PDF on Course Website)
Lucrecia v. Samples, 1995 WL 630016 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 1995) (PDF on Course Website)
Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (PDF on Course Website)

November 28
Miami Workers’ Center, Four Pillars of Social Justice Infrastructure (PDF on Course Website)
Andrea Smith, Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded in RWNBF
Dylan Rodriguez, The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex in RWNBF
Ruth Wilson Gilmore, In the Shadow of the Shadow State in RWNBF

December 5
Rickke Mananzala and Dean Spade, The Nonprofit Industrial Complex and Trans Resistance, Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC (PDF on Course Website)
Paul Kivel, Social Service or Social Change? In RWNBF
Erik Tang, Non-Profits and the Autonomous Grassroots, in RWNBF
Nicole Burrowes, Morgan Cousins, Paula X Rojas, and Ije Ude, On Our Own Terms: Ten Years of Radical Community Building with Sista II Sista, in RWNBF

First, Colby and I wrote an article about cell phones for the Movement Vision Blog. Have a look at http://www.movementvisionlab.org/blog/can-you-hear-me-now-the-trouble-with-cell-phones

Second, I'm in the middle of interviewing for all these law professor jobs, which is tiring but interesting. The only city I'm interviewing in that I know almost nothing about is Pittsburgh. If you know about zillions of cool trans people or brilliant radicals living and doing work in Pittsburgh, write and tell me, okay?

At the Sylvia Rivera Law Project's after-party following its fifth
anniversary celebration last night, two members of the community were
violently arrested and others were pepper sprayed by police without
warning or cause. The two folks who were arrested remain in police
custody and should be arraigned tomorrow. (More details of the incident
can be found below in the press release.)

We ask that people show up tomorrow, Thursday, starting at 9:30am and
continuing throughout the day to call for the immediate release of and
the dropping of charges against the people who were arrested. The
arraignment court rooms are at 100 Centre St (Directions: No. 4 or 5
train to Brooklyn Bridge Station; No. 6 train, N, R or C train to Canal
Street; No. 1 train to Franklin Street; M1, M6 and M15 bus lines are
nearby. 100 Centre Street is one block north of Worth Street, three
blocks south of Canal Street.) Ask for directions to the arraignment
rooms at the info desk when you enter.

For more information or to receive updates via email or text message,
contact Jack at jack@srlp.org, who should be at court and have email
access throughout the day.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts:
Jack Aponte (jack@srlp.org, 347-247-1526) Naomi Clark (naomi@srlp.org,
917-907-4870)


Police Brutality Strikes Fifth Anniversary of Sylvia Rivera Law Project

NEW YORK - On the night of Wednesday, September 26, officers from the
9th Precinct of the New York Police Department attacked without
provocation members of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project and of its
community. Two of our community members were violently arrested, and
others were pepper sprayed in the face without warning or cause.

The Sylvia Rivera Law Project (www.srlp.org) is an organization that
works on behalf of low-income people of color who are transgender,
gender non-conforming, or intersex, providing free legal services and
advocacy among many other initiatives. On Wednesday night, the Sylvia
Rivera Law Project was celebrating its fifth anniversary with a
celebration and fundraising event at a bar in the East Village.

A group of our community members, consisting largely of queer and
transgender people of color, witnessed two officers attempting to detain
a young Black man outside of the bar. Several of our community members
asked the officers why they were making the arrest and using excessive
force. Despite the fact that our community was on the sidewalk, gathered
peacefully and not obstructing foot traffic, the NYPD chose to
forcefully grab two people and arrested them. Without warning, an
officer then sprayed pepper spray across the group in a wide arc,
temporarily blinding many and causing vomiting and intense pain.

"This is the sort of all-too-common police violence and overreaction
towards people of color that happens all the time," said Dean Spade,
founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project. "It's ironic that we were
celebrating the work of an organization that specifically opposes state
violence against marginalized communities, and we experienced a police
attack at our celebration."

"We are outraged, and demand that our community members be released and
the police be held accountable for unnecessary use of excessive force
and falsely arresting people," Spade continued.

Damaris Reyes is executive director of GOLES, an organization working to
preserve the Lower East Side. She commented, "I'm extremely concerned
and disappointed by the 9th Precinct's response to the situation and how
it escalated into violence. This kind of aggressive behavior doesn't do
them any good in community-police relations."

Supporters are gathered at 100 Center Street, where the
two community members are being held awaiting arraignment. The community calls for
charges to be dropped and to demand the immediate release of those
arrested.

The time has come!! Tyrone and I are working on putting all these conversations about money into a website that will hopefully spark more and more. That means all you geniuses should take the provocative things you wrote in comments to recent posts and make them into short essays or commentaries we can post. PLEASE.

Call for Submissions: Enough

What is that is the difference between financial security and hoarding wealth?
What are some ways we can share resources to support community and movement-building?
How can we talk to each other about personal money issues and politics without guilt, shame, and judgment?
What does a politics of wealth redistribution look like in the day-to-day, and what are the obstacles to developing conversations about this in political communities we belong to?

These are some questions we’ve been thinking about, and we’re interested in jumpstarting conversations about how we conceive of and live a politics of wealth redistribution. We’d like to invite you to contribute some writing to a website we’re creating to explore this topic, called Enough.

The ubiquity of capitalism in the U.S. can limit our ability, even in radical communities, to conceptualize creative responses to oppression and injustice. This can manifest both in how we build movements (reproducing bureaucratic, hierarchical, business-type models; packaging and “selling” social justice work to foundations in exchange for grants), and in how we deal with personal finances in our own lives (defaulting to patterns like hoarding, excessive consumerism, and individualism in how we conceptualize our lives and futures and economic security).

We’d like to address some of the ways that class privilege and capitalist dynamics function even within communities and within the lives of individuals working to fight oppression and economic injustice. It can feel taboo to share details about things like income, inheritance, class background, debt, and spending. Silence and secrecy about money make it difficult for us to challenge ourselves and each other when classist dynamics arise. Social conditioning trains us to hoard money rather than share it and build community. We want to get people talking about building shared values and practices around wealth redistribution, because we think figuring out how much is enough, and when to give away money, are key under-discussed questions in anti-capitalist politics.

Some examples of the kinds of things we’re looking for:

-Pieces about how your class position has changed over the course of your life, and how that has affected feelings of responsibility about wealth redistribution.
-Stories about cool methods of figuring out what is “enough” when it comes to making/saving money. How do class background, class conditioning, fear, guilt, and other factors influence how you think about this question? How do you figure out what you need versus what you want when it comes to consuming?
- Examples of (or ideas for) community-based support systems that serve as alternatives to individualistic models of taking care of ourselves.
-Strategies for redistributing wealth in your community, or to support social justice work.
-Discussion of how ideas about wealth, security, scarcity get reproduced in families.
-Diatribes on the politics of inheritance.
-Discussions of professionalism and salaries.
-Exciting models of people dealing with money ethically in activist spaces and organizations.
-Strategies for overcoming immobilizing guilt about class or money.
-Anti-capitalist/anti-racist/anti-imperialist analysis of personal choices about saving for retirement, buying real estate, taking certain jobs, supporting our community, etc.
-Diagnostic worksheets to help people figure out any of the following:
My place in the economy (local, domestic, global)
Am I rich?
What sources of security do I have that I may not be aware of?
How do I know if I need something or just want it?
What are my resources besides money?

The two of us come from very different class backgrounds (Tyrone grew up in a first- generation owning-class family, and Dean grew up on welfare) and we’re hoping for a specifically cross-class conversation about these issues. We think that the anxiety that can arise when talking about these things among folks with different experiences of class can be useful and productive, and we hope to create a space where we can learn by sharing our experiences and challenging each other.

Please send us an email if you have an idea you’d like to write about, a resource you think we should know about, existing writing you think we should post in this conversation. Your piece can be short or long, written in any style.

i've been thinking about what it feels like to want things. people keep telling me they want the new phone that is an ipod and a phone and tv or something and it makes me feel sad.
the other day i had to go to a very rich person's house as part of my job. there was a hot tub that looked like it was just a rocky pool that happened to have naturally occured in the yard behind some other rocks and there was an enormous view of the ocean and really pretty trees and a giant kitchen and lots of other things. i had this strong feeling that just being there with my co-workers and having us all admire the place was really wrong. i don't think i want to be in situations where i admire things like that that can only exist because of global exploitation of other people in factories, mines, and fields. i felt how the things i was seeing there could only exist out of severe economic oppression--they wouldn't be the way they are, belonging to the person they belong to, located where they are located--were it not for extreme violence and oppression.
i feel like this kind of thing is what conversations about real estate in new york are about too--when people get to talking about the prices of apartments and houses. it's like this group process of placing value in certain ways, feeling certain kinds of emptiness and desire, that i want to find alternatives to. capitalism is all about having us look up at the things we want all the time, feel insecure and inadequate, and quest for more and more, never looking down at people who have less to see if we have more than enough.
i've been thinking about how we can more actively create communities of desire and pleasure using other values. we're already doing it in a lot of ways, through trans politics and feminism and fat politics and anti-racism, rejecting the values and standards provided to us and teaching ourselves and each other about valuing different things. i want to look at those processes more carefully, see how they work explicitly and implicitly, and think about generating more of them in more places.
in other news, i've been going to this seminar in irvine every day this week. its about the theological-political and my mind is racing and exhausted. i've been enjoying the readings that deconstruct the idea of a secular state, and also the conversations about how formation of modern forms of governnance require those constructions of secularity. we read an interesting book about different groups of people who have believed in and predicted different kinds of apocalypses which was also fun. i don't like having to get myself to irvine every day at all, though.
if you want to see what we're doing, go to http://flatiron.sdsc.edu/projects/sect/main.php?nav=sub&page_id=12

i just want to say i'm sorry if i keep saying the same things over and over in all these posts. i feel like i do. i think its just reflective of how i'm thinking, like all these things require thinking again and again and again. i'm amazed at how similar the things i wrote about this issue in 1999 are to what i'm writing now. what does that mean? that i'm not creating enough conversations to move to new places? i hope this is beginning to change with this rad conversation we're having here. i feel like all of this is stirred up in me in a more focused way than it has ever been before.

i was just talking to my friends emily and james about this conversation. one of the things we talked about was how we all feel different kinds of pressure from what our upbringings taught us about money and security and insecurity. it made me think about how much pressure we all feel from what our upbringings taught us about gender and sexuality, yet what a rich and robust set of communities i'm a part of that provide tons of space and models for resistant gender and sexual practices. i really don't think i could ever have openly identified as trans, and especially allowed myself to be a non-traditionally gendered queer trans person, without knowing that others existed and eventually meeting them and then more and more. still, when i hang out with certain friends like james who have really non-traditional trans identities i feel like his very existence opens space for me to be less judgmental toward myself and less internalizing of other people's transphobia toward me. i want to think about how we can do this with economic justice practice.

emily and i were talking about what a gathering of friends to discuss these themes might include. we talked about something like a dinner party, where people know they are specially invited and come with a more intimate and open feeling than a large event. we talked about how 70's feminist consciousness raising groups focused on people sharing openly and learning about sexism and feminism from each other's experiences. i like the idea of building shared analysis from what people already in the room know, and teaching each other. we also talked about creating a moment when people can all share their anxieties about the conversation at the beginning, in order to help people move out of a judgmental space and into a compassionate space, recognizing that we're all there together to help each other be the good people we are and build strategies to live that.

those ideas seem really smart for working with the group of friends emily and i share, who are familiar with and invested in feminist practice. i imagine other things would work better in other circles. we also thought that it would be essential at such an event to do a visioning exercise about what people think economic justice looks like, so that it wasn't just a depressing apathy-producing conversation, but was one about vision and practice. i can imagine planning something with emily with a certain group of friends we share, and i enjoyed how concrete it was to talk to her about it. i could imagine a dinner party/facilitated conversation like that resulting in that group of people doing a project of some kind together, making a zine, or deciding to meet again and that was fun to think about.

i keep having lots of these conversations with people in person who have or have not been reading this series of posts and comments. it seems like a main sticking point keeps being my bits about cell phones. in some ways, it makes me want to stop mentioning it, because it seems like such a stumbling block for some people that gets in the way of the rest of the conversation. in other ways, i feel like it kind of gets to the heart of what is hard here. why do we find each other's practices threatening? why do we need each other to do the same things or dismiss what others are doing?

i was thinking about environmental practices again, and how my friend asher moved to LA and got a veggie diesel car. its a great thing to do, and i am really excited to learn about it. yet, i don't feel threatened or defensive that its not something i can do right now. similarly, when i had a garden and composted all the time, i loved telling people about it and showing them, and none of them seemed to see it as an indictment of how they threw away vegetable scraps. why were we able to, in those conversations, each see other people making different contributions, recognize them as significant even though they are relatively small, find them inspiring, and still be engaged in different practices related to those principles in a non-defensive way? i want to think about flipping the money script to look more like that. so that nepon's story about selling the house in a way that reflected economic justice goals is fuel for our thinking, or someone else telling us they make their own sex toys instead of buying them, or someone else saying they've stopped buying coffee, or me saying i don't have a cell phone, are actions that we can reflect on and consider as options for ourselves and hear more about and embrace. i'm not quite sure what makes the argument about cell phones so hard to hear, and result in such vigorous defense of a product that, while it is not the root of all evil, can't really be argued to be a politically liberating or environmentally friendly or economically redistributionist item. i mean, does it deserve defense? i think i need to think about how i'm talking about it that might contribute to this. i want to approach these conversations non-judgmentally but still be allowed to have strong feelings about the products and marketing schemes and trends, while being clear that i'm not judging the buyers, though i am sharing my critique because i think it's worth something.

anyway, these thoughts are a bit disconnected. tyrone and i are working on ideas for creating some kind of space for this conversation and i'm so excited. we'll write with updates and requests for articles and stuff as it comes together.

here are some links to things i wrote at other times about class/wealth redistribution/greed and responses people wrote back. its interesting to read them now, for me, because its been so long.
my 1998 essay about going to grad school and classing up with a response by ananya mukherjea: http://makezine.org/greed.html
maybe also from 98 or 99, about why we should give cash to poor people, from when i was just learning the concept of harm reduction (cute!), http://makezine.org/foodonly.html
the essay i wrote in maybe 2001 about why i wasn't into cell phones (which generated more hate mail than anything else i've ever written, mostly from activists calling me a hypocrite)
http://makezine.org/celly.html
from 2003 maybe, letters between me and my sister and my friend pascal about poverty and white trash fetishization. some of this was published in michelle tea's anthology "without a net."
http://makezine.org/siblings.html

sorry i don't know how to make real links in live journal.

i've been really enjoying these conversations about redistribution, and having really good discussions with people via email as well. everyone is being so brave! i just want to acknowledge how anxious i feel every time i get an email saying there is a new comment and i know i have to read it. i mean, i'm excited to read it, but also i have an enormous amount of anxiety about being misunderstood, discovered in all kinds of way, etc. this is just really tricky stuff and i'm impressed with all of us for talking to each other about it.
my sister and i had an interesting and difficult conversation the other day because she told me she is considering getting a cell phone and we talked about how i still feel like it is important to me to resist that particular version of consumption and she talked about how there are so many things we each do that contribute to environmental destruction, economic injustice, and capital accumulation that it seems problematic to her to single out this particular item/purchase. she mentioned things like having cars, having laptop computers, buying clothes that were probably made in sweatshops, etc. i had to agree with her, and this reminded me of other conversations i've had with people about hypocrisy, one of which i'll also describe here.
after my last post, i had a conversation with a friend who said that he would never give to a non-profit because he knows all these rich, elite-educated people who work at non-profits who are hypocrites and he doesn't want to give them money.
i think in both these conversations, we're dealing with the fact that there is no right way to be in this economy, especially for people with as much privilege as many of us living in the US and being housed and having educations have. the question of hypocrisy often comes up as a way to discount certain critiques. what i wonder is if there is a way for us to recognize that none of us will ever have perfect analysis or practice on this stuff, none of us has the right answers, and to still be able to nondefensively hear each other's ideas and attempts. my critique of cell phones is strongly felt, but it is not designed to make other people feel bad, its is focused on helping us remember things that are easily forgotten about this relatively new "necessity." i don't share this critique based on an idea that i am perfect and my choices have no negative impacts and i am the master non-consumer. i have a car right now. i have a laptop computer. i, like everyone trying to do this work, could be accused of hypocrisy, but i'm not sure it is a useful approach. i think that people will make different choices about their priorities and needs in figuring out redistribution. people with dependents might decide that life insurance or a retirement account are essentials for them in the current economy. people with mobility issues or living in certain places may find a motor vehicle to be essential. people who perform emergency services for a family or a hospital or a community of some kind may find that cell phones are essential to them. i just wonder if we can make a space to have the conversation that acknowledges that it is okay to have a strong view critiquing certain widespread consumer practices or norms and still not judging individuals. it reminds me, again, of conversations about polyamory, monogamy, and marriage where i always feel we need to work to open space for critique of big coercive systems and at the same time avoid judging anyone's personal navigation of their practices. it just doesn't get us anywhere, and fear of being judged keeps us from participating in conversations that we might find useful or liberatory. i think this is why i keep going to the green living/environmentalist/local foods discussion model. when people give each other tips on how to use less energy or how to make their own veggiediesel or how to change gift-giving practices in their family to reduce plastics or how to replace foods from afar with local foods in their diets or whatever i feel like those suggestions are taken as points of departure and inquiry and maybe not as huge bases for judgment (although probably some people do judge and feel judged). i want to imagine us exchanging ideas in that way, like nepon's comment about how they tried to sell a house in an ethical way. what an interesting project that people could try or adapt if it makes sense for them! what other things like that exist? what things are people living without consuming that i'm consuming thoughtlessly? what cool ways are people giving away resources that i haven't thought of? that kind of exchange really excites me, and doesn't require us to believe that anyone is entirely consistent in their political practice, because that is not really possible in this world yet. i hear people speaking a lot to the issue of fear, and i want us to get to the bottom of how judgment works and how we can create space for real analysis and specificity in a context committed to non-judgment so people can work on being willing to hear past fear.

wow, lots of exciting conversation going on in the comments to my post below about giving away money. to that end, i thought i'd make a new post with some things that have come to mind. it seems like part of what i'm imagining is that we might do what i see people doing in various environmental and food justice movements which is help each other have more information and ideas for doing things in new ways that match their ideals. so, people are telling each other about how to do things differently, how to know the impact they are having on the world by how they eat or build or dress or parent, and hopefully its done in a way that decreases feelings of guilt and apathy and increases feelings of possibility and creativity. i want us to do that about economic justice and wealth redistribution, make it personal, creative, mutually supported and brave. its easy to name the problems with giving away money, the fears and concerns, and that is important, but let's also share what we're doing that we feel good about and why so people can get ideas if they want.

here are my thoughts on where i give money and how:
1) i try to give money to every homeless person who asks me for it, usually $1-5. my motivations are multiple, but probably the biggest one is that i hate that people pretend they don't hear people asking for money and i want to acknowledge these requests and acknowledge that i share cities with people who are far worse off than me and that i benefit from an economy that houses and clothes and entertains me and kills others. i also want other people to see me giving to homeless people and to reject horrendous notions that people still believe in and that motivate the war on the poor, like that homeless people should only be given food and not cash because they are morally culpable for their homelessness and will make bad decisions with cash. homeless people aren't homeless because they make bad financial decisions. i feel like giving away cash is a symbolic acknowledgement of that. homeless people know more about the economy that most anyone, from my perspective, and are the best experts in what they need to do with any resources that come their way to survive.
2) i give money to non-profit organizations. i'll try to make a complete list in the order of who i give the most to first.
a) sylvia rivera law project. obviously, and organization very close to my heart where i worked for years and with which i still do a lot of work as a non-staff collective member now. i am passionate about how srlp operates as a collective non-profit. some of the features that most excite me: everyone gets paid the same regardless of educational attainment or position, no one works without benefits, the organization is focused on being governed by and for those it serves and being staffed by and for, meaning that majority governance power and staffing is always people of color and trans/intersex/gender non-conforming. you can learn more about the structure at www.srlp.org. also, i have seen first hand that SRLP, which has provided free legal help to something like 800 or 1000 people in the last 5 years, does work that literally saves peoples lives who have nowhere else to turn because of the interesecting race, class, and gender discrimination they face when trying to get basic help. i really believe in this model of providing survival services and politicizing people at the same time. i don't think we can afford to do either one without the other.
b) fierce!, audre lorde project, critical resistance. these three organizations are people of color governed, focused on building mass resistance through leadership development and direct organizing, and are committed to an intersectional analysis that builds models of resistance and change that comprehend racism, imperialism, colonialism, heterosexism, transphobia, xenophobia, and the impacts of the prison industrial complex. these orgs speak a politics that is hard to find anywhere, and support communities and build leadership that has been consistently marginalized in most gay activism.
c) center for lesbian and gay studies. i give money to this group because it is pushing forward a vision of political queer analysis and scholarship from an embattled public school system (CUNY) and consistently supports scholarship and ideas that engage race politics, trans politics, disability politics and other key areas where i think we need to develop our thinking and writing as part of movement building.
d) project south. this is a group i'm just getting to know that i think does really important work around political education and thinks about movement building in a way that i admire.
e) FFLIC Hurricane Relief Fund. this is where i chose to send money after katrina, in addition to critical resistance, because they were focusing on issues faced by youth in juvenile jails in the area and i was particularly concerned about how people who are "thrown away" into the prison industrial complex would survive the disaster.
other groups that i'm interested in these days that i think are doing key political work that is under-valued by philanthropy and is essential to building the world we need are incite, southerners on new ground and the miami workers' center.
i also give money to specifica emergent needs, like the recent fundraising for the families of the Jersey 4 (4 young black queer women who were railroaded in a criminal case motivated by racism, sexism and homophobia and given enormous criminal sentences), and to people i know who are raising money for things like political trips to their countries of origin or to other key places in their movement work, or for their surgery funds. part of this is about participating in an ethic of money sharing amongst friends and making sure people feel supported by their communities. i do want us to move past a model of individual surgery benefit parties and toward a model of pooling funds and giving the money away in a need-based framework, because i think that the people with resources to throw parties are not always those with the greatest financial need, but i still want to contribute to those benefits while they are going on.
i don't have a consistent, planned way i give to these groups but i would like to. often i just respond to their mailings, except with SRLP where i donate particular funds that come my way like certain proceeds of speaking engagements. i hope that one thing we could do if we develop this group conversation is talk about how to build a consistent practice, recognizing that we can build stronger social movement infrastructure if we can consistently support organizations and allow them to rely on our gifts by telling them ahead of time how much we can contribute and letting them budget that in, especially by making multi-year pledges. i definitely starting giving more money away when i started struggling to raise money to keep SRLP's doors open, and seeing how hard that was, and how unjust the process of grant-giving is, and how much work small organizations do to keep our communities alive and push political mobilization.
the whole point, to me, is to recognize that i want to end wealth, that any extra money i have (not that it is easy to figure out what is extra and what is necessity in capitalism) does not belong to me, and came to me through a variety of practices of maldistribution that i am responsible to correct. sharing this list is not about celebrating my generosity, but rather about being open about my internal process, and inviting you to do so as well, so we can talk about what giving money away looks like, how and why we do it, how we can increase it and make choices about it and support each other in doing so.
also, i want to add a couple other notes about an economic practice/principle that is important to me. i think that profiting off someone else's housing is wrong. i think no one should own housing the don't live in, and i think we shouldn't make a profit off subletting if that is something we do. when i sublet my apartment, i do it for the amount of rent i would pay for that period or less. profiting off someone else's basic living needs, off of just solely having the privilege of owning real estate or a lease and having more than you need, seems to me to a be a basic tenet of capitalism, like inheritance, that i would like to see abolished. in general, i'd like us to move away from private ownership, but for now, i definitely think we should move away from landlordship and profiting off other people's need to be housed. home ownership and land ownership is more complicated politically and i would love to see people help each other develop some ways of thinking about this, especially in the context of gentrification and all of us living on land stolen from native people. as i watch white people who identify as activists buy apartments in historically poor and/or people of color neighborhoods in new york and philly, i feel like we need a conversation about those choices and what they mean and what factors lead to them and what alternatives are. even in terms of people i know who are talking about buying rural land to create communal living space, i think we should talk about the fact that only some people can do that, and that land struggles are the backbone of imperial and colonial projects, and what it means for non-native people, especially white people, in the US to participate in the land economy. i don't have answers to this, but i would be so excited to be a part of meaningful conversations with other people concerned about building shared analysis and political practice regarding this topic.

i just came back from the us social forum. i have a lot of different thoughts about it, but one thing that happened was that at the 'building a queer left' event i met a trans person named tyrone. he and i had a very interesting conversation about work he has done focused on connecting with other people from class-privileged backgrounds and working with them to think about giving away money. we talked about how some of the work that goes on in that realm, while really awesome, feels somewhat unsatisfying because its so focused on trying to help people feel comfortable giving away any money at all that it doesn't ask the harder questions like, should people give away all their money if they have more than they need to live? Is it ethical to hoard any resources? also, we talked about how a lot of that work is focused on giving to foundations or is coordinated by foundations, and we both have a growing critique of philanthropy (see the book, _the revolution will not be funded_).

i talked with tyrone about an idea i've had for a while that i would like to create a little workshop that could be done very informally with people i know as a social gathering focused on helping people realize their role in the economy, the obstacles to many people in the US understanding themselves as "rich" even though they are, what it means to overcome apathy and guilt, why giving your time is important but giving away money is also an essential radical thing to do, etc. i'm mindful that not only do i know people who have big money like trust funds, but i also know people who make high salaries, and i know a shitload of people who are going to inherit some amount of money some day when their parents or grandparents die. i am especially mindful of that group, which is the largest i think, and how when their parents die they will be totally traumatized, of course, and it seems likely that that trauma will prevent them from forming a political understanding that about how inheritance is a cornerstone of capitalist oppression and keeping the money is not the right way to honor their parents' memories. of course, there is 0% chance that i'm going to inherit any money since my mom is dead and my dad lives off his girlfriend and was marginally housed before he found her, so i realize i might not be the best person to do this work. i have 'nothing to lose' in this analysis. i don't have to face the guilt or insecure feelings people with wealth or future inheritance face (i have different guilty/class shame/insecurity, don't worry) when these conversations come up. so i've thought about doing this type of workshop with a partner who does have family resources in order to create a space that is safer for people opening themselves up to this analysis. i've imagined creating an event that feels social and will draw people for that reason, but that includes this political education element and encourages people to face the feelings that come up when recognizing class privilege and to learn about what it means to begin to think through a redistributionist political practice before they inherit or get a mortgage or have a kid or other things that often lead to a conservativizing political practice.

today when i was driving to work, though, i further reconceptualized this. one of the presentations i saw at the forum was about the phillipines, and i was struck to my core by the poverty people are facing there, as in so many places. i am getting ready to apply for a set of academic jobs that would give me a big income leap if i get one, and i've been thinking a lot about something i wrote about years ago on makezine.org: how to figure out what is the amount we each need to live and each can give away, how to face feelings of fear and financial insecurity that cause people to hoard wealth in retirement accounts or buy real estate, etc. these topics are so taboo, and so difficult for very good reasons, and i really long for a meaningful group conversation about it. today i was thinking that it might be cool to start a network of people setting to work coming up with some key guidelines about how to think this through: how to measure your financial needs and obligations and how to assess your consumer practices and how to determine ways of keeping a redistributionist politic. i can imagine people contributing articles to a website about concerns they have with various consumer trends (like my concerns about cell phones and ipods and expensive, privatizing, plastic creating, ubiquitous new 'needs'), i can imagine people really discussing what a living wage is in various cities and what to give away, how to invest in a shared future of social justice rather than personal accounts aimed at making old age less vulnerable, how to assess ways of giving away money (as cash to homeless people, to organizations that are community controlled, to foundations, etc), how to think about family obligations, and how to deal with difficult feelings and experiences that result from breaking the rules of capitalism (and, possibly, your own family system) by getting real about and redistributing wealth. i feel like i can already see some of my friends getting more conservative, considering buying apartments, having their standards of living slowly or quickly get higher without acknowledging the value shifts and resource usage that represents. i see people using rhetorics of "self care" in ways that are more about consumerism and convenience than sustainable healthy living practices. i wonder if people would be able to be safer being critical about this if there was a group putting their heads together and offering the security of doing this work in numbers instead of as a lone person.

just to be clear, i am NOT talking about starting a non-profit. that is the last thing i want, to start a new need for resources. instead, i imagine a network, a place to think about shared values and standards of redistribution that acknowledges the obstacles people face when trying to think this through responsibly, and a place to feel supported by shared analysis and committment to economic justice. i also like imagining this thing that is like a budget worksheet. once, to manage my debt, i went to this non-profit that helps you budget your money and figure out what you can do to pay your debt and get by. the person went through my life with me on worksheets, figuring out what i spent and what i could cut out. it actually wasn't helpful at all in my case, but i can imagine us getting to the nitty gritty of talking about the fact that decisions to eat at home or out a certain number of times a month, or to buy electronic gadgets, or to take trips, are political decisions that impact our ability to redistribute our resources, and we could imagine non-judgmental ways to assess our own practices and think about how to aspire to meet our politics in new ways. do you think this would interest anyone, or am i just a deluded formerly poor person who thinks people will actually have politics that are more than lip service?

i also like imagining helping people who have not worked extensively in non-profits to think through where to give their money. i feel like a lot of smart, kind people have vague critical feelings about non-profits generally that keep them from giving to non-profits or make them want to give to big, established non-profits that they percieve to be fiscally responsible. i'd like to help people think about what good non-profit practice looks like, assessing things like community governance, pay equity, committment to leadership development, anti-racist organizational development, etc.

has anyone seen this? http://www.catherinecrouch.com/mainwebsite_html/filmsDetail.php?pageID=gendercator
it's some movie called 'gendercator' that is being shown at the frameline film festival in SF this year, and i got an email asking that people write to the festival and get it taken out because of its transphobic presence. the 'director's note' on the website above, which discusses the mixed up world we're living in where lesbians are turning themselves into trans men, is certainly disturbing. wondered if others had heard about this and were doing anything...
on another note, i'm in canterbury england at kent law school. the computer i'm typing on has the @ symbol where i would expect a double quotation mark. that's obviously not the only difference i've observed, but the most relevant at this moment. i'm looking forward to finding out more about trans activism here and meeting trans people. i'll report back. i'm going to staffordshire to keele law school after this for two weeks. back in nyc for my 30th birthday party on june 16. that's my story. everything here is unbelievably expensive. i'm excited to be on an adventure by myself.

This is about an email exchange I had today that captures some themes I’ve been thinking about. First, I got an email from the reporter from “UCLA Today” who is doing a profile of me for the paper. We did an interview yesterday. Today she writes:

To: Spade, Dean
Subject: Question
Do you think you might answer one more question:
Considering all you have told me about the discrimination transgenders
face in so many arenas, why did you decide to live openly as a
transgender? Cyndy

I forwarded it to my friend, Rolan, saying:
"Spade, Dean" <spade@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
i have absolutely no idea how to answer this question.

Rolan brilliantly responded:
UGH! How about this:
Dear Cyndy,
I'm not sure. Why did you decide to live openly as a woman?
or
Dear Cyndy,
I'm not sure why I decided to live in a way I am comfortable despite external sources of violence, coercion, and discrimiantion. Why do you have hair?
or
Dear Cyndy,
I'm not sure why I didn't trade in my sense of self to placate to rampant transphobia. Why did you decide not to kill yourself today?

For the last month this guy from the major legal newspaper of Southern California has been working on a profile about me and my work at UCLA that keeps not being run by the paper. He told me the editor he works under refuses to run the story unless it includes whether or not I’ve had “the surgery.” I have told him I will not reveal my genital status to the readers of this paper, and that I don’t think they any of the other lawyers and law scholars who get profiled to do so, so I don’t see why its necessary to my profile. The reporter was understanding, and kept re-editing the piece, trying to make the editor satisfied without describing my privates. Several times the reporter called to say the story would run the next day or week, and then it would run into the same problem and he’d come back to ask me more questions and add different info to the story, hoping to get it past the editor. I heard from him last week that it would run on Monday, and that he was leaving the paper to become a magazine writer. It didn’t run, and I’m assuming it won’t now. I was only really doing the profile because it’s the kind of thing that the place I work for right now is into (media coverage), so I don’t feel much loss of it being printed, and it probably would have made me cringe anyway, but I am pretty annoyed that I spent hours with the reporter, did two separate in person interviews and countless follow-up emails and calls, and my refusal to reveal what’s in my pants made that time wasted.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the explanations of trans identities and bodies that are required in all kinds of discourses about trans people, and what it means to refuse to participate in explaining myself or trans people in general. I’ve been giving public presentations of this new law article I wrote to law professors and other people (far) outside trans communities, and running into these various requests for explanations a lot. My mentor and I have gone back and forth about whether my article (or maybe every article I ever write?) needs a “trans primer” section where I help the reader understand the population. What is there to understand? That is my question. If I’m explaining a bunch of policies and laws that make it hard for trans people to get ID or Medicaid benefits, what kinds of background info are required beyond the impact of the policies, the reasoning behind the bad policies, the model for better policies and the reasoning behind that model? Reading law articles about trans people written by non-trans people has given me an eye to what is expected to be explained. People need to understand if/why trans people are human.

From the articles I’ve been reading, I’ve noticed a basic formula to these trans primer sections, which usually precede the analysis of law or policy the article focuses on. The point of these primers is “trans people are human.” To get to humanness, three key things are always cited: 1) intersex conditions exist, 2) some native American cultures had non-binary gender formations 3) studies show that trans people have “female brains in male bodies” or “male brains in female bodies.” I’m interested in thinking about the labor that each of these three pieces of evidence perform. How does the legitimacy and humanity of trans people get confirmed by a racist notion of the “ancientness” of non-binaristic gender through the (usually overgeneralized and inaccurate) portrayal of gender in native cultures? How do intersex conditions purportedly function as a “safe” articulation of the reality of gender variance? Why are inverted brains necessary to establish a basis for an article about, say, cases where trans people get their kids taken away from them or lose jobs for being trans?

What is disturbing me most right now is not just that people write stupid things about trans people. I’m used to that. Most of what gets written confirms inaccurate stereotypes that trans people are defined by “sex change surgery” (whatever that is), that we should have to explain ourselves, that doctors know more about us than we do, that we’re pathetic victims, that we hate ourselves, that we’re all gender-conforming heterosexual patriots after transition, etc. What I’m really disturbed by right now, I think, is that the conversation I have with each reporter, the “trans primer” section of each article, the misguided things lawyers and policy makers and law professors say to me in my professional life are so identical in each instance. Maybe sometimes we think that people are uninformed about trans issues, or clueless. I think instead people have a highly rigid, crystal clear training on navigating the humanity/inhumanity of trans people, and that it is so coercive that its almost impossible not to mirror it back to them when doing advocacy. Its almost impossible not to get involved in the conversations about our legitimacy by trotting out medical authority and brain studies, to not explain ourselves when the questioner has the power to frame or erase our words, to not answer “well meaning” questions that reestablish our freakishness and the natural order of binary gender.

So I’m thinking about what a resistant practice of non-explanation means. I just finished working on a mutual interview with the maker of Boy I Am, talking about trans representation and this issue of sensationalism and explanation and hypermedicalization of trans identity. Here’s one thing I wrote in that interview about this:

“In terms of how I want to represent trans communities and see trans communities represented, I do have some new ideas about that recently. I think the thing I’d like to see most is for films, trainings, shows, speeches, panels and other public education tools to stop trying to answer the questions “Why are people trans? How do they feel about themselves? What are they like?” and start focusing just on “What are the obstacles to trans people’s survival and equality? What does discrimination look like? How can it be prevented?” I think that as soon as the first set of questions are in play, trans people are objects of fascination. We’re suddenly defending our very existence, participating in the assumption that we are strange, unusual, interesting, and, ultimately, that our humanity has to be proven and defended. When people attend trainings, film screenings, and events that attempt to make trans people human by explaining who we are and why we are this way we further entrench the objectifying method of viewing us that is already indoctrinates people who view us on Montel Williams or Jerry Springer and Law and Order. What we really want to be training people to do is to stop seeing trans people as rarified objects, to stop asking trans people inappropriate questions about our bodies, sexualities and life histories, to stop creating policies that demand trans people disclose genital status when non-trans people are never asked to do so, and to begin to be able to identify obstacles that they are participating in or creating to trans people’s equality and survival. This is a totally different framework for trans public education. It would include documentary film where trans people didn’t do the usual things, like talk about their childhoods and surgeries and put on make-up or binders in front of the camera, but instead where trans people, never having to explain themselves, talked about their issues with Medicaid or prisons or schools or shelters. The viewer would not learn the genital status of the trans subjects any more than they would learn it for the “experts” in the documentary. I think that the Sylvia Rivera Law Project’s movie, “Toilet Training” is one such documentary, and I think it is like that because it was made by trans people confronting a specific social issue. I give this same advice to the hoards of well-meaning “researchers”—usually graduate students—who contact me wanting to conduct surveys about how trans people see our bodies or how we have sex. They are interested in studying us to deconstruct gender and to demonstrate how we think about ourselves. I beg them to stop studying us and our existence and start studying the institutional obstacles and systemic oppression we face that is so under-described and under-discussed. Similarly, for people trying to sensitize their insitutions to trans people, I beg them to stop creating panels where trans people speak about our life stories, and instead create meaningful training curricula that help trainees analyze the specific obstacles to trans access within the institution. Its about moving away from defining and describing trans people, and toward defining and describing the concrete changes we need to end gender oppression. Seeing Boy I Am again, and dialoguing with you about it, has helped me get at this paradigm shift for trans public education materials that I’m hoping for. I think it is the next step in building trans political power, and in moving away from a medicalized gaze on the trans body/identity, and toward a political gaze from trans experience onto oppressive institutions.”

That doesn’t really get at the personal practice part of this, though. I’m still struggling with how to navigate my refusal to provide pat explanations of myself and my trans identity and experience to all the people who love to ask me. I feel like I’m engaged in a resistant practice of refused transparency and reduction of myself to the level of the “human,” but I’m not entirely sure what that means yet, or what all of its costs will be. I have to leave my office right now to go to therapy and refuse to explain my trans identity to the professional. More on this topic later, maybe. Who am I kidding? I’ll probably be talking/not talking about this for the rest of my life or until I abandon trans identity altogether to live alone in the woods.